Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Keto diet = good or bad

13839404244

Replies

  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    whmscll wrote: »
    Science has also found that a diet high in saturated fat is directly related to higher incidence of colon cancer, and that high consumption of red meat plays a large role. As someone with a high risk based on family history I would never in my life consider keto. It is not the right path for everyone.

    I'm afraid that this is not correct.

    Processed meats like bacon are found to to correlate with a 20% increased risk of colon cancer, which means that the risk rises from 5 to 6%.

    A diet high is saturated fat has NOT been found to cause colon cancer, nor does it correlate to increased risk. The meat preservatives appear to be the problem, and not the meat. Saying that saturated fat is the problem is incorrect, but it is mainly the fault of poor journalism or those with an anti meat agenda.

    But, if you do have evidence that saturated fat causes cancer, please share it. As someone who eats a lot if red meat, I would be curious to read it

    I think with the exception of transfat, this can literally be said about everything. Science suggest correlations because all of this is multifaceted. Its no different than the stuff you say about refined carbs. Because one can consume lots of them and still become metabolically healthy.

    Its why all diets produce similar results. The difference between all of these diets is minimal.

    It could be said about everything, but it is usually the higher fat, and foods with higher saturated fats, that are demonized: red meat, eggs, full fat dairy, coconut or palm oil. It is marginally better now, but most people still wrongly think that red meat or coconut, foods that people have been eating for thousands of years, is bad for you.

    Refined and highly processed foods, including many seed oils, are relatively new to our diet and have not shown themselves to be harmless, even in epidemiological studies. At best, they are neutral. At worst, frequent consumption appears to proceed or accompany poor health or diease.

    LOL I think the pendulum has swung pretty hard the other way in that the only foods I see demonized these days are sugar, carbs, and “white foods”... totally ignoring that many of the examples provided contain as many calories from fat as from carbs... yet look how your own post ends...

    My response was to correct some common misinformation. Saturated fats have never been proven to hurt health, and the only correlation it has to poor health is when preserved and highly processed (like bacon) or when consumed with highly refined and processed carbs (baked deserts). If you remove those factors, saturated fats are harmless.

    On the other hand, refined and highly processed carbohydrates do not appear to be as harmless as saturated fat, as seen often in less reliable epidemiological studies and a few rcts.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869506/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793267/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996878/

    But if you have something that shows refined and highly processed carbs improve health, or are associated with better health, I would be interested to read it.

    I have never denied that eating too many calories make you fat. I have said in the past that high fat and high carb together is a recipe for weight gain, but in what you are quoting me, I was talking about the health effects of foods and not eating too much (aka CI>CO) or comparing calories.

    Who is arguing that refined and highly processed carbohydrates improve health or are associated with better health? There's a term for arguing against a claim that nobody is making . . .

    If you think refined and highly processed carbs are not contributors to poor or neutral health, I assumed one would think it is a positive contributor. I cant see another option. My point is that I have not seen any benefits to health.

    The only benefits to health for the typical person of refined and highly processed carbohydrates, that I know of, is that it has calories.

    I have yet to see anyone on here advocate for a diet consisting only of highly processed carbs, so again you seem to be moving the goalposts. If someone ate nothing but highly processed carbs, would that be a bad thing? Yeah, probably. That can also be said about any other food as well though, so I don't understand the point you are trying to make. I can eat highly processed carbs in addition to a wide variety of other foods and still have a healthy diet. In fact, I honestly believe my diet now is healthier than if I was to completely exclude them because they make me happy, and my diet is more sustainable that way.

    You are moving the goal posts: I did not say anyone ate a diet of all refined and highly processed carbs either.

    This quote was in response to someone saying SFA causes cancer. It does not.

    Then someone else stated their opinion that " the only foods they see being demonized these days are sugar, carbs and 'whites foods'". My response to that was that refined and highly processed carbs are not being demonized if they are not good for you. Many plant foods are quite healthful. R+HP carbs are not. I also said that sfas are still commonly demonized, although it is declining.

    I doubt your diet is healthier including R+HP carbs, than if you replaced it with some other whole food. Your diet is probably healthy enough to carry you despite that. Just like my diet is hopefully healthy enough to carry the fact that I eat pepperoni or bacon on most days.

    Few people have a perfectly healthy diet. Some food items are healthier than others. Including small amounts of theses healthy items is less likely to do damage than including large amounts of those foods in a diet. We hedge our bets based on what we know or believe is true in nutrition science, and our own personal and health experience.

    I already have plenty of whole foods in my diet. I like to have variety. I don't want to get bored with my diet or feel restricted. It is good for my mental health to be happy with what I eat, and positive mental health is a huge part of overall health. I am extremely active and do plenty of strength training and kickboxing and because of that I feel like I can enjoy all sorts of foods. It was nice of you to point out that my diet could be healthier, but I am going to do my own thing. Thanks.

    I just love the irony of a person who eats virtually no fruits or vegetables lecturing people who eat all foods including some processed foods in moderation about what a healthy diet is.

    Because it is proven that a diet of moderation in all things, including processed foods, is the healthiest diet for all? Or even some? Funnily enough, that is more dogma than anything.

    I'm sure some people make moderation work great, but is that because of the diet or in spite of the diet? It's more popular than keto, I'll give you that...

    Nope. If you read what I wrote in a prior post I said I advocate a varied, balanced, nutrient dense diet with treats in moderation but specified that the macro focus and what a person defines as a treat and “in moderation” would vary by individual.

    Look we all know you have adopted an extreme way of eating that has had health benefits for you. That does not make a diet that doesn’t exclude carbs bad for the vast majority of people. It also doesn’t make a carnivore diet “healthier” for those who don’t have the same medicinal issues that you have. You can claim the opposite all you want but the fact remains that an all meat and oil diet can not possibly offer the variety of foods and nutrients that a diet that includes fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy, etc - even if some of those are “processed” .

    And LOL that those of us who practice moderation are healthy in spite of our diet.

    I don't know what previous post you are referring to. I was referring to this
    I just love the irony of a person who eats virtually no fruits or vegetables lecturing people who eat all foods including some processed foods in moderation about what a healthy diet is.

    Where I felt you implied that a diet with moderation is all things, supposedly balanced, is better than not eating all things.

    My stance in this latest go around on is keto good or bad, is that refined and processed foods are not healthful (we can include many seed oils in that too). If you include those in your diet, they most likely will not make any positive contributions to your health. Will small amounts make people sick? Probably not. Will larger frequent amounts? Quite possibly. Are whole food carbs nutritionally superior to refined and processed carbs (and fats)? Yes.

    I'm drinking a diet Dr Pepper right now. I know it is not contributing to better health except possibly in the fact that it replaced a less healthy item like a normal Dr Pepper. I am healthy in spite of that food in my diet. At least for now. Maybe one day the aspartame will pickle my brain or something...

    Some foods are healthier than others. They have more nutrition to them. That's my argument.

    That was literally WMDs argument. You can incorporate processed foods and still be healthy by all means. Its when processed foods crowd nutrient dense foods.


    ... Yes, I realize that. It was partially what I was saying.
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Also, SFA is not in too much different of a light compared to processed carbs. Studies aren't showing the benefits of SFA. They are showing benefits of Omega 3 PUFA, MUFA, whole grains, fruits and veggies.

    The studies I linked to were to show SFA's do not cause poor health and that refined and processed carbs do not correlate to good health. That's it.
  • zeejane03
    zeejane03 Posts: 993 Member
    edited March 2019
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    whmscll wrote: »
    Science has also found that a diet high in saturated fat is directly related to higher incidence of colon cancer, and that high consumption of red meat plays a large role. As someone with a high risk based on family history I would never in my life consider keto. It is not the right path for everyone.

    I'm afraid that this is not correct.

    Processed meats like bacon are found to to correlate with a 20% increased risk of colon cancer, which means that the risk rises from 5 to 6%.

    A diet high is saturated fat has NOT been found to cause colon cancer, nor does it correlate to increased risk. The meat preservatives appear to be the problem, and not the meat. Saying that saturated fat is the problem is incorrect, but it is mainly the fault of poor journalism or those with an anti meat agenda.

    But, if you do have evidence that saturated fat causes cancer, please share it. As someone who eats a lot if red meat, I would be curious to read it

    I think with the exception of transfat, this can literally be said about everything. Science suggest correlations because all of this is multifaceted. Its no different than the stuff you say about refined carbs. Because one can consume lots of them and still become metabolically healthy.

    Its why all diets produce similar results. The difference between all of these diets is minimal.

    It could be said about everything, but it is usually the higher fat, and foods with higher saturated fats, that are demonized: red meat, eggs, full fat dairy, coconut or palm oil. It is marginally better now, but most people still wrongly think that red meat or coconut, foods that people have been eating for thousands of years, is bad for you.

    Refined and highly processed foods, including many seed oils, are relatively new to our diet and have not shown themselves to be harmless, even in epidemiological studies. At best, they are neutral. At worst, frequent consumption appears to proceed or accompany poor health or diease.

    LOL I think the pendulum has swung pretty hard the other way in that the only foods I see demonized these days are sugar, carbs, and “white foods”... totally ignoring that many of the examples provided contain as many calories from fat as from carbs... yet look how your own post ends...

    My response was to correct some common misinformation. Saturated fats have never been proven to hurt health, and the only correlation it has to poor health is when preserved and highly processed (like bacon) or when consumed with highly refined and processed carbs (baked deserts). If you remove those factors, saturated fats are harmless.

    On the other hand, refined and highly processed carbohydrates do not appear to be as harmless as saturated fat, as seen often in less reliable epidemiological studies and a few rcts.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869506/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793267/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996878/

    But if you have something that shows refined and highly processed carbs improve health, or are associated with better health, I would be interested to read it.

    I have never denied that eating too many calories make you fat. I have said in the past that high fat and high carb together is a recipe for weight gain, but in what you are quoting me, I was talking about the health effects of foods and not eating too much (aka CI>CO) or comparing calories.

    Who is arguing that refined and highly processed carbohydrates improve health or are associated with better health? There's a term for arguing against a claim that nobody is making . . .

    If you think refined and highly processed carbs are not contributors to poor or neutral health, I assumed one would think it is a positive contributor. I cant see another option. My point is that I have not seen any benefits to health.

    The only benefits to health for the typical person of refined and highly processed carbohydrates, that I know of, is that it has calories.

    I have yet to see anyone on here advocate for a diet consisting only of highly processed carbs, so again you seem to be moving the goalposts. If someone ate nothing but highly processed carbs, would that be a bad thing? Yeah, probably. That can also be said about any other food as well though, so I don't understand the point you are trying to make. I can eat highly processed carbs in addition to a wide variety of other foods and still have a healthy diet. In fact, I honestly believe my diet now is healthier than if I was to completely exclude them because they make me happy, and my diet is more sustainable that way.

    You are moving the goal posts: I did not say anyone ate a diet of all refined and highly processed carbs either.

    This quote was in response to someone saying SFA causes cancer. It does not.

    Then someone else stated their opinion that " the only foods they see being demonized these days are sugar, carbs and 'whites foods'". My response to that was that refined and highly processed carbs are not being demonized if they are not good for you. Many plant foods are quite healthful. R+HP carbs are not. I also said that sfas are still commonly demonized, although it is declining.

    I doubt your diet is healthier including R+HP carbs, than if you replaced it with some other whole food. Your diet is probably healthy enough to carry you despite that. Just like my diet is hopefully healthy enough to carry the fact that I eat pepperoni or bacon on most days.

    Few people have a perfectly healthy diet. Some food items are healthier than others. Including small amounts of theses healthy items is less likely to do damage than including large amounts of those foods in a diet. We hedge our bets based on what we know or believe is true in nutrition science, and our own personal and health experience.

    I already have plenty of whole foods in my diet. I like to have variety. I don't want to get bored with my diet or feel restricted. It is good for my mental health to be happy with what I eat, and positive mental health is a huge part of overall health. I am extremely active and do plenty of strength training and kickboxing and because of that I feel like I can enjoy all sorts of foods. It was nice of you to point out that my diet could be healthier, but I am going to do my own thing. Thanks.

    I just love the irony of a person who eats virtually no fruits or vegetables lecturing people who eat all foods including some processed foods in moderation about what a healthy diet is.

    Because it is proven that a diet of moderation in all things, including processed foods, is the healthiest diet for all? Or even some? Funnily enough, that is more dogma than anything.

    I'm sure some people make moderation work great, but is that because of the diet or in spite of the diet? It's more popular than keto, I'll give you that...

    Nope. If you read what I wrote in a prior post I said I advocate a varied, balanced, nutrient dense diet with treats in moderation but specified that the macro focus and what a person defines as a treat and “in moderation” would vary by individual.

    Look we all know you have adopted an extreme way of eating that has had health benefits for you. That does not make a diet that doesn’t exclude carbs bad for the vast majority of people. It also doesn’t make a carnivore diet “healthier” for those who don’t have the same medicinal issues that you have. You can claim the opposite all you want but the fact remains that an all meat and oil diet can not possibly offer the variety of foods and nutrients that a diet that includes fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy, etc - even if some of those are “processed” .

    And LOL that those of us who practice moderation are healthy in spite of our diet.

    I don't know what previous post you are referring to. I was referring to this
    I just love the irony of a person who eats virtually no fruits or vegetables lecturing people who eat all foods including some processed foods in moderation about what a healthy diet is.

    Where I felt you implied that a diet with moderation is all things, supposedly balanced, is better than not eating all things.

    My stance in this latest go around on is keto good or bad, is that refined and processed foods are not healthful (we can include many seed oils in that too). If you include those in your diet, they most likely will not make any positive contributions to your health. Will small amounts make people sick? Probably not. Will larger frequent amounts? Quite possibly. Are whole food carbs nutritionally superior to refined and processed carbs (and fats)? Yes.

    I'm drinking a diet Dr Pepper right now. I know it is not contributing to better health except possibly in the fact that it replaced a less healthy item like a normal Dr Pepper. I am healthy in spite of that food in my diet. At least for now. Maybe one day the aspartame will pickle my brain or something...

    Some foods are healthier than others. They have more nutrition to them. That's my argument.

    That was literally WMDs argument. You can incorporate processed foods and still be healthy by all means. Its when processed foods crowd nutrient dense foods.


    ... Yes, I realize that. It was partially what I was saying.
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Also, SFA is not in too much different of a light compared to processed carbs. Studies aren't showing the benefits of SFA. They are showing benefits of Omega 3 PUFA, MUFA, whole grains, fruits and veggies.

    The studies I linked to were to show SFA's do not cause poor health and that refined and processed carbs do not correlate to good health. That's it.

    Yes and when you look at foods that improve health, what are they? Veggies, fruits, whole grains, MUFA, PUFA (Omega 3). Things that are neutral (SFA)? Things that may be harmful in large quantities? Processed foods.

    That is the point i am making. And the point is, if you want a diet that maximizes "benefits" what should you eat? Or better yet what should you limit?

    In general, increase fibrous foods, increase fish, whole grains/oats and oils like olive and flax. Pretty much Mediterranean Diet. But what this doesn't address is the other parts, which is what diet can make you compliant which supercedes all.

    And yes, your situation is a bit unique and not the norm when it comes to the general populous. So you have to modify.

    When naming off foods that improve health do not overlook the health improving coconut oil.

    While coconut oil isn't a bad choice for electrolytes, I would still rather an oil that doesn't make my food tast like crap.

    One more point. At the end of the day, the impact of foods will be nominal compared to being lean and exercise. The difference between eating all the "right" foods and including "bad" goods will probably be unimpactful/unmeasureable.

    If you look at all the studies that include weight loss, they all provide the same take away.... that weight loss improves health markers, almost universally. Similarly with exercise. And the one diet you follow, or the foods that you should consume, should all align to diet preference and address personally satiety cues. Because even if one diet is proven the best, which is unlikely, it doesn't matter if one cannot follow it.

    7 years into the process and that's where I'm at now-I've lost the excess weight and am maintaining, but I can no longer ignore the being 'active' part of the equation. I've focused a lot on the 'healthy' food aspect, but am starting to realize that probably isn't that big of a deal, in the scheme of things.

    I'm really interested in the Blue Zones and use the common food traits of the zones as a model for my own way of eating. But that's only part of the picture and I need to now start focusing on the other part of this-getting off my bum and moving more :p

    edit; grammar and stuff
  • Bwilty7
    Bwilty7 Posts: 45 Member
    Atkins 2.0 - fad diets never last.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,389 MFP Moderator
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    whmscll wrote: »
    Science has also found that a diet high in saturated fat is directly related to higher incidence of colon cancer, and that high consumption of red meat plays a large role. As someone with a high risk based on family history I would never in my life consider keto. It is not the right path for everyone.

    I'm afraid that this is not correct.

    Processed meats like bacon are found to to correlate with a 20% increased risk of colon cancer, which means that the risk rises from 5 to 6%.

    A diet high is saturated fat has NOT been found to cause colon cancer, nor does it correlate to increased risk. The meat preservatives appear to be the problem, and not the meat. Saying that saturated fat is the problem is incorrect, but it is mainly the fault of poor journalism or those with an anti meat agenda.

    But, if you do have evidence that saturated fat causes cancer, please share it. As someone who eats a lot if red meat, I would be curious to read it

    I think with the exception of transfat, this can literally be said about everything. Science suggest correlations because all of this is multifaceted. Its no different than the stuff you say about refined carbs. Because one can consume lots of them and still become metabolically healthy.

    Its why all diets produce similar results. The difference between all of these diets is minimal.

    It could be said about everything, but it is usually the higher fat, and foods with higher saturated fats, that are demonized: red meat, eggs, full fat dairy, coconut or palm oil. It is marginally better now, but most people still wrongly think that red meat or coconut, foods that people have been eating for thousands of years, is bad for you.

    Refined and highly processed foods, including many seed oils, are relatively new to our diet and have not shown themselves to be harmless, even in epidemiological studies. At best, they are neutral. At worst, frequent consumption appears to proceed or accompany poor health or diease.

    LOL I think the pendulum has swung pretty hard the other way in that the only foods I see demonized these days are sugar, carbs, and “white foods”... totally ignoring that many of the examples provided contain as many calories from fat as from carbs... yet look how your own post ends...

    My response was to correct some common misinformation. Saturated fats have never been proven to hurt health, and the only correlation it has to poor health is when preserved and highly processed (like bacon) or when consumed with highly refined and processed carbs (baked deserts). If you remove those factors, saturated fats are harmless.

    On the other hand, refined and highly processed carbohydrates do not appear to be as harmless as saturated fat, as seen often in less reliable epidemiological studies and a few rcts.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869506/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793267/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996878/

    But if you have something that shows refined and highly processed carbs improve health, or are associated with better health, I would be interested to read it.

    I have never denied that eating too many calories make you fat. I have said in the past that high fat and high carb together is a recipe for weight gain, but in what you are quoting me, I was talking about the health effects of foods and not eating too much (aka CI>CO) or comparing calories.

    Do you realize that first link you posted goes against a lot of what you believe, especially as you have dipped more into carnivore?

    My personal favorite:
    On the other hand, recent clinical trial and epidemiologic evidence suggests that a diet with moderately restricted carbohydrate intake but rich in vegetable fat and vegetable protein improves blood lipid profile (10) and is associated with lower risk of IHD in the long term (11). Benefits of the plant-based, low-carbohydrate diet are likely to stem from higher intake of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, and micronutrients as well as the reduced GL in the dietary pattern.

    Clearly, diets high in either saturated fats or refined carbohydrates are not suitable for IHD prevention. However, refined carbohydrates are likely to cause even greater metabolic damage than saturated fat in a predominantly sedentary and overweight population. Although intake of saturated fat should remain at a relatively low amount and partially hydrogenated fats should be eliminated, a singular focus on reduction of total and saturated fat can be counterproductive because dietary fat is typically replaced by refined carbohydrate, as has been seen over the past several decades.
    In this era of widespread obesity and insulin resistance, the time has come to shift the focus of the diet-heart paradigm away from restricted fat intake and toward reduced consumption of refined carbohydrates.

    So essentially, reduce and replaced processed carbs with whole carbs or plant based fats. And focus on PLANT BASED proteins, fats and fiber.


    So no one would argue that processed carbs or processed fat is beneficial. Focus on whole foods is going to yield much better results. Also, modulating carbs based on adherence, personal satiety cues, and athletic performance needs.



    ETA:


    And from your second link:
    In summary, replacing dietary intake of SFA with refined starches has little effect on the risk of CHD. However, consumption of added sugars, especially of SSBs, may have a stronger association with risk than either SFA or refined starches. When SFA are replaced with whole grains, risk of CHD is decreased. However, there is still uncertainty regarding the absolute and relative importance of these different components of the diet. A growing weight of authoritative opinion is emerging that supports these conclusions [29,30,31].

    How about that. Replacing SFA with whole grains (from cereals) does reduce the risk of CHD.


    Essentially, while the correlations of SFA and CHD are low or not founded, you still see improved health when replacing SFA with other nutrients like PUFAs or whole grains.

    Meh, it's pretty tough to find a link that supports everything I have experienced for myself. The links show what I intended: refined and highly processed carbs are foods best avoided or limited.

    I have never denied that increasing plants and pufas happens to lower ldl, nor that past (poor) studies associated that with reduced cvd risk due to lowering of ldl (presuming ldl contributes to cvd). But I consider ldl to be the weakest of all associations to cvd risk, way behind HDL, triglycerides, crop, cac score and whether or not someone has hyperinsulinemia.

    Pufas do lower ldl but that doesn't help CV health. Replacing sfa with whole grains does not lower risk of chd either - it only lowers ldl . You are conflating a weak association with causation.

    Pufas also raise all cause mortality and raises your risk of developing cancer. I'll stick with more SFAs than recommended.

    Plus the recommendation of a wfpb diet is over SAD. It is not shown that wfpb is better than wf-animal-based. I don't deny that wfpb can be healthy if supplemented properly, but it won't beat animal product heavy diets, nutritionally speaking.

    Its amazing how you ignore what is written in favor of your own agenda. I literally copy and pasted what your cohert study suggested. The data suggested a 10-20% reduction in CHD disease when replacing SFA with whole grains. That is statistically significant. So adding more SFA does nothing to improve health. At best, its nuetral.

    And it is amazing how you forget that correlation =/= causation.

    You know that any number if factors can cause this reduced risk factor of 10-20% ( not cutting cases of CHD by 10-20% as you implied). Perhaps saturated fat is implicated because they slather butter on their bread. Who knows. Maybe they replaced spam and bread with salmon and wild rice.

    Its amazing that you keep saying something we know and i have said in this thread. All science is correlation not causation. Its because its based on a various evidence that doesn't have 100% to all the factors in all human scenarios.

    You can certainly choose to ignore the evidence. That is ok. That is your choice. But the evidence, that you post, is that whole grains (cereal) is better for "you" that SFA. This is something you often suggest, in other threads, is correlated with increased CVD. And there is tons of evidence to suggest that fiber is highly correlated with improved health. Yet again, something that is non essential. Meat is non essential. Oils are non essential. Just because they are non essential doesn't meat that dont have impacts. Fiber is positively correlated to improved health. Several oils (like flax or olive) are also correlated to improved health. Meat does not have the same correlations.


    Let's just leave it at epidemiological studies prove nothing.

    You cherry picked a few sentences that seem to say that plant = good. The sentences before it said
    A very-low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet (eg, percentage of energy < 20% from fat and >70% from carbohydrates), once typical in traditional Asian populations, has the potential to be cardioprotective if most of the carbohydrates come from minimally processed grains, legumes, and vegetables and if the population is lean and active (and thus has low insulin resistance). However, such a diet is difficult to maintain long term. A very-low-fat diet may also increase risk of hemorrhagic stroke (9)...

    which is a less positive correlation.

    I know that there are correlations that show fibre is good, meat is evil and that all PUFAs are great. But it is not proof, although it is often stated as such. There are also correlations showing that fibre increases stomach upset (while creating the same nutrients that animal foods may provide) and that meat has no correlation to cvd (in the paper you quoted as well as the others). I am not ignoring the evidence. I believe that what you are calling "evidence" is not. I disagree with your hypothesis. You seem to think it is conclusive evidence. We will have to agree to disagree.

    There are dozens of meta analyses that show positive effects of fiber? Where are the ones about SFA or meat (and btw, i am a huge red meat eater). And i never said meat = CVD. I said that there are not additional benefits demonstrated by consuming lots of red meat.

    Those meta analysis (which show a correlation to goo health, not a cause) are on diets that need it: diets with a fair bit of carbs. For diets with very little or no carbs, there is no predicted benefit.

    I'm all for whole foods. If one can tolerate or benefit from plant based foods, I think whole foods are the way to go. Something about them, it could be the fibre, may be beneficial. More beneficial than foods that are not plant based? Its possible in a well planned diet.

    And I dont believe I wrote meat = CVD . But I am glad you never said that either.

    The benefit that I see from eating red meat is protein and nutrients - it is a very nutrient dense food. But again, no one is advocating for "consuming lots of red meat" either.

    Currently, i have only seen a hypothesis regarding keto diets not needing fiber. I don't think there is enough evidence to support that one, even on keto diets, wouldn't benefit from fiber.
This discussion has been closed.